ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Non-typhoidal
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence ofVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Non-typhoidalItalian journal of food safety · 2026Article
- Multidrug Resistance in Bacterial Isolates from Clinical Samples Submitted to a National Veterinary Diagnostic Facility in Uganda (2014-2020): A Retrospective Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Phenotypic resistance and virulence gene profiles of non-typhoidalVeterinary world · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of nontyphoidal Salmonella in Ghana: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Tropical medicine and health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Non-typhoidal Material and methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey, collecting 364 stool samples from livestock slaughterhouse workers and 1,535 samples from the pork value chain: mesenteric lymph nodes, fecal samples, swabs of carcass splitting floor, cleaning water, meat handlers hand swabs, carcass swabs, raw pork, cooked pork, and mixed raw vegetables. Samples were cultured for isolation of NTS, and subsequently serotyped according to White-Kauffmann-Le Minor scheme. Antimicrobial resistance profiles were determined using tube microdilution and Sensititre Results and discussion: Overall NTS prevalence was 19.2% (365/1899). Proportions at slaughter were; 46.7% in floor swabs, 30.5% in carcass swabs, 20.5% in pig faeces,19.2% in mesenteric lymph nodes,18.4% in hand swabs, 9.5% in water and 5.2% in slaughterhouse workers. At retail, proportions were 33.8% in pork chopping surface, 33.1% in raw pork, 18.9% in hand swabs, 4.0% in cooked pork and 0.7% in vegetables. Sixty-one serovars were identified, with significant overlap between humans and the pork value chain. Overall, zoonotic
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.